You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening, *-oriented or any other material that may violate any applicable laws. Doing so may lead to you being immediately and permanently banned (and your service provider being informed). The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. You agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators of this forum have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic at any time they see fit.

This thread is purely for entertainment purposes only. In it, we can post links to the myriad of objects - big and small - that are given the "Frank Lloyd Wright" label - no matter how far removed from reality or how absurd and tenuous it may be.

the examples are already, 'too much'. Bringing laughter to a dreary day. Shouldn't the FLWFDN or the Archives be contacting these people regarding the usage of the name Frank Lloyd Wright ? After all, it is al licensed trademark. Or is it legal to infer 'kind of like FLW, sort of like FLW, we want you to think it's like FLW"......???

DavidC wrote:This thread is purely for entertainment purposes only. In it, we can post links to the myriad of objects - big and small - that are given the "Frank Lloyd Wright" label - no matter how far removed from reality or how absurd and tenuous it may be.

It doesn't outrage me, but at the same time, it certainly doesn't seem to serve the cause of architecture or the interests of the Wright community when a great artist's work can become confused with horrible kitsch.

Just about any museum shop sells Picasso tchotchkes. The Carpenter Center at Harvard has (or once had) a "Cafe Corbu" whose merchandise wouldn't quite qualify as tchotchkes. I once heard a disco version of The Firebird.

If you want examples of art/artists that have been turned into all manner of tchotchkes and kitsch to the extreme, consider DaVinci's "Mona Lisa", Munch's "The Scream", Hopper's "Nighthawks", and possibly the most egregious of all, Wood's "American Gothic".

Come to think of it, in the realm of sculpture, Rodin's "The Thinker" and Michelangelo's "David" have been exploited savagely as well.

When you consider these examples, maybe FLW has not been treated so poorly by comparison?

If you want examples of art/artists that have been turned into all manner of tchotchkes and kitsch to the extreme, consider DaVinci's "Mona Lisa", Munch's "The Scream", Hopper's "Nighthawks", and possibly the most egregious of all, Wood's "American Gothic".

Come to think of it, in the realm of sculpture, Rodin's "The Thinker" and Michelangelo's "David" have been exploited savagely as well.

When you consider these examples, maybe FLW has not been treated so poorly by comparison?

But was the exploitation done by their own people?
I don't believe many museums sell copies of "American Gothic" with Bill and Hillary in it. Others do.
I'm not sure that selling copies of a work of art is the same thing as taking parts of a work of art and turning it into earrings.